Texas Attorney General Opinion: C-644 Page: 3 of 5
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Hon. John Connally, page 3 (C- 644)
the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or
religious seminary." There is no Texas case law upon this
question, and there has been only one prior Attorney General's
opinion issued that has directly met this issue.
Attorney General's Opinion 0-2412 (1940) war written
in response to a question from the Director of the Vocational
Rehabilitation Division of the State Department of Education.
That agency was authorized to assist in the rehabilitation of
disabled persons in many ways, one of which was to pay their
tuition at a college or university. Several individuals had
expressed a desire to attend a denominational school, such as
Baylor, Southern Methodist or Texas Christian, and the Attorney
General's office was asked whether the payment of these handi-
capped persons' tuition to such schools would constitute a
benefit to these sectarian institutions in violation of Article
I, Section 7, of the Texas Constitution. It was concluded, in
Opinion 2412, that such payment of tuition would not be a direct
benefit, but would be an indirect one that was forbidden by the
Constitution. In support of this proposition, the opinion cited
the case of Jernigan vs. Finley, 90 Tex. 205, 38 S.W. 24 (1896).
This case dealt with the question of whether a county's indebted-
ness to the State authorized the Comptroller of Public Accounts
to withhold payment of the county's pro rata share of the avail-
able school fund. The law expressed by the Supreme Court regard-
ing this question has no bearing upon a question of what consti-
tutes money paid for the benefit of a religious organization.
0-2412 was, in fact, based upon two cases from other jurisdic-
tions: Synod of Dakota vs. State, 2 S.D. 366, 50 N.W. 632 (1891),
and Williams vs. santon GraiaeCommon School District, 173 Ky.
708,191-w. 507 (1917). Both of these cases are well--written
expressions of the law and philosophy of their era. The S nod
case is still the law in South Dakota, but the Williams caseaas
been superseded.in Kentucky.
The Supreme Court c Kentucky issued a landmark opinion
in Kentucky Building.Commission vs. Effron, 310 Ky. 355, 220 S.w.
2d U36 (T9J. Therein, pursuant toT~tuEte, the State proposed
to pay tuition and certain other benefits to assist in the opera-
tion of a school of nursing operated by a Catholic hospital.
Although we have the added feature of contract, the Kentucky situ-
ation was essentially like ours, in that their statute was enact-
ed to enable the State to make use of Federal funds made available
for social purposes. The essential reasoning of Effron is express-
ed in the following sentence, taken from page 837:' ...
"It is well settled that a private agency
may be utilized as the pipe-line through which
a public expenditure is made, the test being not
who receives the money, but the character of the
use-for whih it is exeedt." ( (ipEhasis -addeMT3130-
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: C-644, text, March 31, 1966; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth269063/m1/3/: accessed March 29, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.